Posted
by
Soulskill
on Saturday October 13, 2012 @11:36AM
from the apparently-building-cars-is-expensive dept.

The California Energy Commission has awarded a $10 million grant to Tesla Motors for the company to buy equipment necessary for the production of its Model X electric SUV. Tesla will have to match the funds with $50 million of its own money. From the article:
"It was something of a love fest for Tesla at the energy commission meeting in Sacramento as commissioners and other regulators praised Tesla as an innovator that has brought automotive manufacturing back to California while creating clean cars and more than 1,500 jobs. 'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board. ... 'Tesla’s Gen 3 vehicle could ultimately be a game changer for electric vehicles and air quality and public health in California,' added McCarthy, referring to Tesla’s plans to build an electric car in the $30,000 range. Its latest car, the Model S sedan, sells between $50,000 and $100,000 and the Model X, which is based on the Model S platform, is expected to sell in that price range."

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person unco

Think of somebody with a house. Say they spend a lot of money on heating because their house isn't well-insulted. Now they could just cut down their heating, but that has the cost of making the person uncomfortable, and less able to work. Wouldn't it be feasible for said person to go into debt in order to improve their house's ability to retain heat?

We are way beyond "going into debt." We are spending like a drunken frat boy at a bachelor party with a new Amex Gold card. (New card because all the old ones are full.)

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity.

If someone had $500,000 in debt and told you that they were considering using the deed to their car to secure a $30,000 loan to try to start a new business from the ground up, would you say they were:A) A savvy businessmanorB) Out of their mind?

Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.

Sometimes that idea of "spending to make" is utterly retarded, and one of the scenarios is when you are deep deep in the red and cannot afford the consequences of losing out on the risk you are taking.

The risks are ever diminishing as you get deeper into debt below your net worth. Taking measured risks is ok, but the extra components are knowing what the potential reward is, and understanding any second and third order risks (such as the losing your car and not being able to get any other work).

California is spending money to keep jobs in-state. They will recover half the money they spend through sales tax revenue from the equipment purchase. The remaining $3,400 per employee will hopefully be recovered in income taxes, at least over a 2-3 year period. If there happens to be any economic ripple effect then the payback will be much faster.

Selling a kidney for money to start a business from the ground up on the other hand...

They can keep jobs in state by relaxing ridiculous regulation. California is number one in the nation in term of losing jobs and productive people in the last few years and the main cause is the overbearing business regulation and taxes. A 10 million grant to a specific hand picked oh so green and wonderful company isn't going to make a slightest bit of difference. In any case, as soon as Tesla becomes a mature auto maker instead of a novelty comp

Dear AC, truth died long before Obama entered Harvard and the GOP should not only allow the White House to raise taxes, but they should insist that it be higher than what the Dems are asking because, as the party of fiscal conservatism, they should do everything in their power to reverse the damage caused by 8 years of Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars, one of which was started for demonstrably wrong-headed reasons.

Constantly analogizing the financial position of a government to that of an individual or a household is of limited value. Macroeconomics is not like household economics. On the personal scale, reaching zero debt is a nice goal. For a government, which is immortal, achieving zero debt is unnecessary and actually unwise. Yes, it's best to keep debt down to a low percentage of GDP, but the reality of economic cycles is such that in a down economy, debt will -- and should -- go up, in order to ensure econo

Why do we need to pay taxes then if the government can borrow or print money forever?

Because the distributive effects of borrowing or printing money forever are nasty. The poor and the young end up paying.

Neither debt, money-printing, nor taxation directly change the amount of actual goods available. They just change who gets how much of which goods. However, that distribution of goods can certainly influence the amount of goods which will be produced in the future. Generally, society at the same time wants to maximize future productions of goods and also make sure that few people get so li

My VW Jetta TDI is cheaper, doesn't run on batteries, gets great mileage, and can drive anywhere. It can't tow stuff, though, but could you imagine an electric truck? You'd be lucky if the thing had enough to power itself, much less haul anything.

Families need an economic distance vehicle with great mileage for commutes and trips,

Your Jetta DOES run on an energy storage system, that's why you have to keep buying gasoline. Much of which is wasted in terms of heat. But don't pretend it's any different than a battery.

Most people drive short distances most of the time, they don't take long trips, they don't need to tow, they don't need to go a hundred miles at a time. And no, they don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of stuff. Sorry, but the reality is most people need a lot less car than you think.

As for maintenance, an electric motor IS a lot simpler than an internal combustion one. They're not expensive to maintain at all, and yes, the batteries can be recycled.

Unlike the pollutants spewing out the back-end of your Jetta. Those are just going to pollute the air.

And yes, there ARE electric trucks. And Tractors. Goodness me, don't you know anything?

Most people drive short distances most of the time, they don't take long trips, they don't need to tow, they don't need to go a hundred miles at a time. And no, they don't need to haul hundreds of pounds of stuff. Sorry, but the reality is most people need a lot less car than you think.

I'm curious, is this the Slashdot consensus? Anybody else want to chime in, because it certainly isn't true for me or really most of the people I know.

As for maintenance, an electric motor IS a lot simpler than an internal combustion one. They're not expensive to maintain at all

Oh, how much does it cost for a set of new batteries? (I'm genuinely curious as I have no clue)

Hard to tell what "consensus" is, but I've got a pretty long commute -- it's about 45 miles in each direction. Counting for inefficiencies and the fact that MPGs lie, if I could buy a reasonably-priced 200 mile EV, I'd jump on it. That said, my family would probably keep at least one gas vehicle. Right now, we have 3 gas vehicle -- going to 2 EVs, 1 gas would be delightful.

Replacing Prius batteries is either a $1000 job if you want to do it yourself and get it from eBay or about $2300 for the new battery

Hard to tell what "consensus" is, but I've got a pretty long commute -- it's about 45 miles in each direction.

Well, that's not too shabby, but there are times when I want to visit family or drive somewhere for a staycation.

Right now, we have 3 gas vehicle -- going to 2 EVs, 1 gas would be delightful. Replacing Prius batteries is either a $1000 job if you want to do it yourself and get it from eBay or about $2300 for the new battery pack (plus some dealer work -- figure on a total of about $3000).

That doesn't sound too fiscally friendly to me, but if you are a handy person and your main concern is the environment, I say kudos. Do you feel that the emissions on a higher-efficiency gas/diesel powered vehicle are lower than a vehicle charged by coal power plants (which is the primary source of power generation in my area, sadly)? I have no clue as I haven't read any studies.

Do you feel that the emissions on a higher-efficiency gas/diesel powered vehicle are lower than a vehicle charged by coal power plants

For one thing, an electric vehicle can just about run on the amount of electricity needed to refine the amount of petrol a petrol car uses to go the same distance... However you are unlikely to place a refinery where energy is expensive, so that is probably hydro power or similar.

But no, in most cases an electric car run on pure coal power loses out to a typical efficient less-than 100g CO2/km car. If you charge it at night you can win though, because it is likely that the power plants will still be idling,

You are not really corrected. The definition of a trip is from one address to another. If you drove to the bank, then to the movies, perhaps dinner out, and a stop at the store on the way home, it would count as 5 trips. I would consider it as one trip. Using the average of 10 miles, it could be about 50 miles in reality.

Just yesterday, I drove to my brothers (12 miles), picked him up and drove to a business to pay a bill (9 miles) then we got lunch, (4 miles), went into town to see some politicians think o

Wow, I stand corrected. I'm amazed that the average trip length is only 10 miles. We folks in Wisconsin must be busy folks!

I drive more than 10 miles to get my mail. Do you people ever go anywhere? We road trip to the cities all the time.

Here's the problem: Apparently you folks in Wisconsin live in the middle of fucking nowhere! Of course even the most basic of errands will require a full compliment of rations and an overnight stay. The majority of the country, however, lives in a neighborhood where most if not all of the things you need are within a few (under 10) miles at least. That includes most recreational needs.=Smidge=

Ok, so we've established that coal power is more efficient/healthy per mile (according to the coal industry) than a combustion engine. I shall integrate that into my factors on whether to purchase an EV during my next vehicle purchase.

Indeed, how do those huge, mining transportation trucks ever power themselves. Or trains. Surely not with electric motors?

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.

The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demo

Electric engines are in fact cheaper to maintain, can do distance runs and hauling far better then internal combustion engines. They have far better range of high torque, far higher torque, far simpler engine designs resulting in having a lot less points of failure and cheap maintenance.

The only problem they have right now is energy storage density. Everything else, electric engines demolish ICE:s on. That is why those huge mining haulers actually run on electric engines which are powered by diesel generators rather then hooking those diesels directly to the wheels.

So which EVs do you recommend a person like me purchase that needs one vehicle for mileage (I generally would want to make a 200 mile trip without stopping to plug it in) and one work vehicle (capable of pulling a boat, trailer full of stuff, or maybe a piece of furniture that I've impulsively purchased)? I'd rather not be limited in what I can do by the capabilities of my vehicles.

The problem of energy storage is not yet solved, as stated in the last paragraph of the post you quoted. Therefore, none.

Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.

Granted, with your attention span I would recommend not driving a vehicle at all. If you can't hold attention long enough before hitting reply with quote to read through the entire thing you're going to quote, you must be one hell of a risk factor to both yourself and other drivers when behind the wheel on long rides.

You can split the difference and get a hybrid. They do make hybrid SUVs and pickup trucks for your towing needs, and something like the plug-in Toyota Prius might be a good fit for your long commute vehicle - if they need to be separate vehicles. In terms of fuel efficiency you're quite near the edge where the Prius outperforms the Chevy Volt, which has a longer all-electric range but slightly worse fuel economy so for longer trips the Prius wins out.=Smidge=

Sometimes the only way to make money is to spend money. Austerity is not necessarily a path to prosperity. I know there's a lot of people who think they can cut cut cut and that'll make things work out for the best, but sometimes you need to expand your offerings, or invest in yourself to reduce costs.

Here's the thing the anti-austerity people tend to ignore. The private world is a hell of a lot more effective at investing than the public world. All that cutting is putting money back in the pockets of the people who actually know how to invest it. So of course, cutting ill-directed public spending (which I might add frequently has no connection to any sort of Keynesian strategy, even a "Pay people to dig ditches and fill them up" approach) means economic growth.

I assumed that the post was a sarcastic critique of the decision to buy foreign-made parts for the new bridge. I was just pointing out that the most famous bridge in CA was also built outside of the local economy.

That was an asinine decision in retrospect. But, at the time, the construction industry was flush with cash and likely thought they could charge a little extra.

At least the technology isn't there yet to build a five-mile long bridge in China, test it, and float it over to the US, set it in place, and be done. At that point, it won't be loss of $200MM to the local economy, it will be $7B.

Californians ARE flush with cash. The State of California just needs to get it from 'em. Recent events have shown that Californians will pay any price for a gallon of gas. So the State should just add $1 of Tesla Tax to every gallon of gas. The State can use the money to buy Teslas for the poor any needy. Since everyone will be poor and needy after paying that tax, that will make Tesla high volume producer and the costs of the Teslas will fall. Yep. That should work as well as other government altern

as one of the comments on TFA site states, 700 jobs at even $50K each and just over 9% State tax is $3.5 million annually. So the State makes their money back just in direct employment taxes in about 3 years. Add to it the sales tax on the vehicles and all the money moving around by building them in CA and it seems like a no brainer considering Tesla has proven they can build good cars already.

Maybe they are, but this looks to be a very good investment on their part. If Tesla becomes another big car company, it will quickly pay for itself in new tax revenue for the state. Not to mention the benefits of less emissions for the state in terms of reduced healthcare costs.

Probably newer data out there but I'm fairly confident it's close enough for our purposes. So if we weigh emissions by source type [wikipedia.org] and assume a miles-per-gallon and miles-per-kWh for ICE and Electric vehicles, we can get an approximation for how the two compare emissions-wise.

Total: 406.42 (Say 407) grams of CO2 per kWh generated. We'll bump that up a bit to account for transmission losses (90%) to 452 g/Kwh. Gasoline gives about 8,200 grams of CO2 per gallon. That's just basic a chemistry.

We'll be again generous and say 30MPG for gasoline and again pessimistic and say 3 mi/kWh for Electric - really stacking the odds against EVs here.

So even being pessimistic we see that driving electric vehicles, with their electricity coming from "somewhere", releases nearly half the CO2 as their gasoline counterpart. More importantly - and the brunt of what the OP was saying - is that the local in-city pollution is reduced to zero. Not only are you producing less pollution, you are producing that pollution away from population centers where it does the most harm.=Smidge=

It takes 6 kWh [gatewayev.org] of energy just to REFINE one gallon of gasoline from oil. A reasonably efficient EV can go 15 to 20 miles on that amount of electricity alone. And that's before you ship the gasoline to the station, pump it into the car and burn it.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas. These are two different things entirely. Needless to say actual pollutants like soot, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides are all zero at the local level with EVs which means improved air quality and improved health for the citizens.

The greenhouse effect is based on high school level physics. CO2's ability to absorb infrared in certain wavelength has been known since the 1950s or so. This is established fact. If you want "observed emirical" (sic) evidence, talk t

The claimed wall_outlet-to-wheel efficiency is 86% so Tesla's numbers are much better than you calculate. But you're pulling a bait-and-switch by comparing to a hypothetical 40-50-60 mpg car to a Tesla and claiming you could do better for the same money?!?!?!?

The cost of the Tesla is not strictly because of its "fuel" efficiency - it's a fucking SPORTS car.

A Corvette ZR1 is a match for the Tesla's performance at roughly the same price but is rated at 14/21 mpg city/hwy.

California also has a unique situation where it is blocked to the east by a mountain range that causes a lot of the smog and pollution to linger around and become more concentrated and more noticeable. If shifting pollution to the other side of the mountains by generating electricity there for use within the state eliminates a portion of this pollution for transportation, then it can have a positive impact on the health and well being of inhabitants without transferring the same degree of negative health ef

are you suggesting that by relaxing standards a new breed of mom and pop crappy automakers will spring up? realistically it just means lowering a protectionist barrier against china

Its a myth that China only does low end low tech manufacturing. They are working very hard at moving to more advanced products. Its likely that advanced car designs will also be sold in China, and likely be manufactured there. The necessary technology and manufacturing expertise will most likely be transferred.

The idea that the US will move to high tech manufacturing while the rest of the world does the low tech manufacturing is an election year fairy tale.

The only way protectionism causes higher prices is when your industry cannot match the demand.

Protectionism works by increasing the prices of foreign products to match or exceed prices of domestic products. If domestic prices were already as cheap as foreign prices, you wouldn't need protectionism. You would just compete.

The Tesla design is still too expensive, the future of electric powered LUV's (light utility vehicles) will be decided by John Deere and Harley Davidson with the able assistance of the Argonne Laboratory vehicle group and the price point will be $15,000. Stick that in your Silicon Valley you tofu eating, suckers! HOOAH!

I do actually accelerate hard on a regular basis - highway entrance ramps are very similar to drag strips, except that you stop accelerating once you get to the speed of traffic (70-80 mph). One of the things to remember is that the current market for these cars is not people in rural areas; they simply don't have the range and charging speed yet. In town I'll get on the highway for my 6 mile trip to work, or if I want to go to a specialty store. And since they're targetting people in places like Califor

Actually, no. It only costs 80K. However, adding a number of other options CAN take it up to 100K. And lets be honest here, if you are buying an 80K car then chance are very high that you are also buying every single other option. IOW, there will be few Model S's getting 300 miles and costing 80K.

In Bob Lutz's "Car Guys vs. Bean Counters", Lutz writes that it was the Tesla roadster that woke up GM. Tesla made the first electric that could really zoom. That shook up the car guys; they thought electrics would be wimpy forever. GM was wary after the EV-1, where they lost money on every car. Lutz describes the session where the Chevy Volt was sketched out on a napkin.

Tesla is making rapid progress on price - a $100K car, a $50K car, a $30K car... That's very Silicon Valley. At last, batteries are good enough. Now they just cost too much.

GM could have sold the EV-1s for essentially any price. But they didn't even try to recoup their costs by selling the cars. Granted, they'd have had to support them. If they didn't use mostly off the shelf components for the parts they're obligated to replace, that's their own fault.

That's an ugly story. GM wanted to source known good parts for the EV1 from Siemens, Panasonic and others. But Delco and Delphi, GM's part suppliers and sister companies, insisted on being able to supply the parts, so GM spent millions of dollars designing and custom-building motors, controllers and batteries through its subsidiaries instead of using off-the-shelf components.

Even then, the cost to develop the EV1, including the design of the car and all of its custom components, as well as the advanced

Tesla is NOT RESPONSIBLE for GM developing it. Lutz says that he was able to start an 'electric' car line in response to it. However, it is lutz that was responsible for the start of it, and sadly, it was the financial idiots that gutted the volt and turned it into the nightmare that it is.

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

That may be a better way of storing energy, but it will not solve the problem of making cars independent of oil and coal. It does have a certain elegance to it that the excess nightly production from renewable sources are used to power cars.

Renewable power does not run at peak all the time. It's the old forms of power - coal especially - that runs flat out 24/7 because throttling those kinds of powerplants is incredibly costly, inefficient and slow to react. It's called "spinning reserve" because the only reasonably way to reduce the output of a coal powerplant is to de-energize the generators and let the turbines keep spinning. If they turn off the furnaces it would take hours to get running again. Throttling a coal powerplant means complete waste of money and resources.

Electrical generation capacity is critically underutilized at night. You need generating capacity to handle peak demand, but most of the time you are running nowhere near peak demand. The reason why many people in CA are eligible for Time-Of-use metering is because increasing off-peak use actually reduces costs. Many utility providers desperately want people to plug in electric cars at night to "fill the tub" and level out the 24-hour demand curve, allowing more efficient and less costly operation.

While I do agree with most of your assessment, you are leaving out the production of the car, and specifically the batteries that use some very nasty chemicals, and toxic elements. And they have to be replaced. Not saying this is still not better, but it is not "free" or "zero" which is the popular claim. Everyone calls them "zero emission vehicles" when a better name might be "deferred emission vehicles" or "transfered emission vehicles."

Alrighty then. This report [wiley.com] conducts an analysis that includes manufacturing the vehicle itself. I've givem my opinion of the report [slashdot.org] and the overall conclusion is EVs are still a winning proposition.

specifically the batteries that use some very nasty chemicals, and toxic elements

More nonsense. All production EVs available now use some form of lithium chemistry. Lithium "mining" is comparatively benign with most of the lithium supply coming from salt flats where the brine is pumped to the surface and allowed to evaporate until the salt you want starts to precipitate out. The electrodes are usually carbon and/or aluminum and the electrolyte - while not something I'd want to be drinking - is typically a volatile organic compound and poses virtually no long-term environmental risk. You must be thinking of nickel batteries. No production EVs I'm aware of use Nickel batteries.

And they have to be replaced

So do engines and transmissions, or at least they need a major overhaul. And like traditional automotive parts, batteries are extremely recyclable.

Least you think you'd need to replace the battery every year or whatever, the standard warranty is equivalent to any other drive train warranty. Even the most pessimistic estimates place the estimated service life of an EV battery at 8+ years (level of abuse notwithstanding). So the issue of cost is moot. Battery packs are also serviceable, in that being highly modular you can replace individual cell sets if that's all that's wrong with it.

Not saying this is still not better

That's pretty much what you were implying, though, wasn't it?

Everyone calls them "zero emission vehicles"

The vehicle itself produces no emissions. "Zero emissions" is actually a legal definition. I seriously doubt any EV owners, much less EV advocates is there are any non-advocate owners, are under any delusion that their vehicle has zero cradle-to-grave environmental impact. Owners of gasoline powered vehicles, however, seem completely unaware - sometimes deliberately so - of the true environmental costs of their chosen mode of transport.=Smidge=

The vehicle itself produces no emissions. "Zero emissions" is actually a legal definition. I seriously doubt any EV owners, much less EV advocates is there are any non-advocate owners, are under any delusion that their vehicle has zero cradle-to-grave environmental impact. Owners of gasoline powered vehicles, however, seem completely unaware - sometimes deliberately so - of the true environmental costs of their chosen mode of transport.
=Smidge=

Completely aware and reminded constantly. Just sick and tired of being compared against free. Sick and tired of people calculating only part of the cost in the comparison. And sick and tired of the huge government spending on something that is just half a solution. The range problem is STILL not addressed.

Gasoline powered cars may not be perfect, but they are still the best we have at this time.

Oil is pretty much as bad. Both oil and coal use massive steam boilers with lots of thermal mass that takes time to heat up and cool down. For maximum efficiency the boilers operate at a set point pretty much constantly except for maintenance periods and the plant is throttled by essentially pissing away the excess energy as waste. Power stations lose tons of money when this happens, so they would rather sell that electricity even at a loss than have it all go up the chimney - that's why many places have lo

You are aware that there are power plants which are not powered by coal or oil, yes?

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Most EVs charge at night, when renewables are overproducing, and fossil fuel base power plants are having to idle turbines, wasting fuel.

'Tesla has the unique distinction of being the only automaker to actually ask us to increase our targets under zero emission rules,' said Ryan McCarthy, the science and technology policy advisor to the chair of the California Air Resources Board

Gee, maybe because it gives Tesla competitive advantage? California is paying this company to exist and then manipulating the market so consumers will buy their vehicles.

Hmm... I have seen this somewhere before... Change California to Federal Government, and Their Vehicles to Chevy Volt. That worked out so well for everyone...

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, that power comes from the ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So the marginal cost of the additional power from converting to electric uses the dirtiest power available.

Unless the increased demand and rising oil prices make alternative electricity sources more economically viable. Sure, electric cars will have a short term marginal cost purely of the dirty power, but once the supply system adapts (and it will) the new power is likely to come in a large portion from renewables.

Yes, but most renewable power sources run at capacity all the time. When demand goes up, where does that power come from? The ones who can most easily adjust to demand, which is usually natural gas or coal. So going from a gasoline car to an electric car uses the dirtiest power available.

Most EVs charge at night, when renewables are overproducing, and fossil fuel base power plants are having to idle turbines, wasting fuel. Besides, I can put solar panels on my roof at any time. I can't produce more gasoline.

You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is. But when government spends money on trying to increase our independence and ability to choose for ourselves without having to consult the United Nations, everyone cry's foul. And if you think there is no link between federal spending and Ca spending, get a clue. Ca, along with New York, is one of the few states that has a net outflow of taxes to the fed. That means that when the US spends money not on anything other than sending it back to the state, Ca is one of the few states where that money is coming from. Not places like Texas where most of the money is given back t the state. Or places like Arizona and Alaska where money is given to the state. Therefore Ca has a great interest in developing technologies that wil make the US less dependent and thus reduce the expenditures.

You know it is interesting that when the government is taking land from hard working US citizens and giving it to the canadian government so they can move canadian oil into tthe US and increase the indebtedness and serfdom of US citizen to foreign entities, everyone says how wonderful that is.